I’ve been saying it for a long time now: CUVs are just getting back to the size and proportions of my favorite era of American family cars, from a packaging point of view: 1949 – 1955. The other day, at my 1962 Plymouth & Dodge article, MikePDX pointed out that the 1949 Plymouth P17 Suburban wagon and popular CUVs, like the RAV4, shared very similar dimensions. Commenter nlpnt dug those stats up, and yes, they are remarkably similar.

I added some other specs too. Obviously, performance and fuel economy are highly divergent. I took an educated guess at the Plymouth’s fuel economy; in the 1950 Mobile Fuel Economy Trials, a Plymouth managed 21.25 mpg, in the hands of an expert hyper-miler. Contrary to popular myth, cars from back then were not very efficient, and breaking 20 mpg barrier was quite uncommon, expect at very modest speeds.

The RAV4 Hybrid has an EPA combined rating of 32 mpg, and Motor Trend’s “Real MPG” test yielded 34 in city driving and 39 on the highway. YMMV.

The differences are also very stark in the interior. The Plymouth is spartan, but that’s what basic family cars were like. No frills, and the heater was optional.

But this version of the Rav4 interior has some similar colors happening. other than that, there’s no real point of comparison.

And in the back, things got even more spartan. Thin plywood on the side walls, and steel and rubber on the floor. But hese were pretty roomy, as befits their boxy body.

We all know this view; could be any CUV. I don’t readily have any stats on the Plymouth’s cargo area dimensions; maybe someone can find them.

This Plymouth wagon has a special place in my memory banks. On our first arrival from Austria in 1960, we were picked up at the Cedar Rapids airport by my dad’s new department head and his wife (who took this picture), to welcome us and drive us to Iowa City. He drove a big 1956 Chrysler hemi sedan; she drove her old 1949 or 1950 Plymouth wagon. Guess which one I was relegated to?

Despite that, I came to appreciate these tall, short boxy wagons early on, and that’s never ended.

97 Comments

Notice the weight of the RAV4 is 400 lbs heavier than the Dodge. For those folks think today’s vehicles are light weight and flimsy, I hope they can change thier minds. I once read in Road and Track that a 2010 S class Mercedes was less 500 lbs than a 1955 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, its front bumper alone was 800 lbs. More important, today’s cars are much safer than those heavy irons. Of course, this particular RAV4 was caughted to cheapen out the front passenger safety by IIHS. As a engineer, I am always amazed who in Toyota signed off this drawing for production. Toyota as a world leader company, has to have awell implanted engineering policies.

Just the same, a Sienna or Odyssey is +10MPG more efficient, has better roadholding, holds >6 adults, and has more interior height than the pre-Panther Country Squire et al. Only real downside is less trailer hook capacity, which is what BOF SUVs are for.

I just came across a 1970 “defensive driving” paperback from the “scare ‘em straight” school. I got about half way through it and had to put it down. Thank goodness, it was printed In black and white. The cars were absolutely unrecognizable. Nothing but twisted metal. The lack of crush zones or roll over protection stood out starkly.

The Chrysler Corp. cars were a little taller than their competition, supposedly because Chrysler head K. T. Keller wanted to wear his hat in the car. Their advertising bragged about the “chair height” seats. Here’s a blurb from a ’53 Plymouth ad.

I think today people like a crossover’s height to see traffic, particularly to see around and over all the SUVs and pickups in our crowded traffic.

Also, getting in and out is easier. Our population is older than ever, and older folks are more active than ever. Of course, that’s ignoring the fact that we’re all fatter than ever. Age and weight put a lot of strain on the back, the knees, and the rest of it, so lowering one’s self down into a low-slung car is physically more difficult than sliding slightly sideways into a CUV.

As for hats in cars, Ford, for at least a couple decades’ worth of “how we design and build cars” sort of films, had a template of a man wearing a hat they used to check drawing dimensions during the design phase. Given that hats were nearly ubiquitous until the 1960s, I’d be surprised if Chrysler had to modify a design to accommodate men with hats.

Now, if his wife wore a particularly elaborate hat, that could be something.

Wow, that Suburban is spartan inside! When I looked around for a shot of one of the higher trim Plymouth sedans, the difference is noticeable. This one is supposed to be a ’50.

You have hit on something true here – automotive dimensions from the second half of the 50s through most of the 80s are starting to look like an anomaly. Minivans and SUVs/CUVs seem to be reverting back to a long term stability.

It makes sense to me in that leading up to and after WWII, two-car households were the exception. Cars had to be more useable as a whole by default. I would not be surprised if people shifting into two-car families spurred the dimensional shift of the late 50’s. Nowadays it seems like most people have at least one utility vehicle of some sort and “the car”.

You caused an “I am my father” moment with your comment. In 1972, Mom was driving a ‘68 Country Squire LTD wagon (kid hauler), Dad had the ‘69 F-100 (for hauling big stuff), and acquired a used ‘sporty’ ‘71 Vega for the commute to work.

Until recently, my sister and her husband had 2 sedans: her, a Prius and him a Mercedes E-class.
They probably could get by with one car but she recently replaced her 3rd generation Prius with a 4th generation and the E-class? It HAD to be replaced by another Mercedes-Benz, so they got an SUV. I recently visited but irked my BIL by not going to the garage and examining the new car, so I can’t say if it’s a ML or a GLC. But I got the impression it was chosen because of it’s price, not because it is easier for my 80+ year old BIL to enter and exit.

“You have hit on something true here – automotive dimensions from the second half of the 50s through most of the 80s are starting to look like an anomaly. Minivans and SUVs/CUVs seem to be reverting back to a long term stability.”

I’ve been saying this to my wife since the SUV/CUV boom started (she sure is long-suffering of my car nut rambling!). We’ve gone back to the 20s-40s dimensions, even down to tire diameters.

Nearly all the dimensions for the RAV4 are labeled as RAV4….NOT as RAV4 hybrid, so are the stats for the heavier hybrid vehicle? And I realize that the fuel economy numbers are for a hybrid Toyota, how much lower are the non-hybrid fuel numbers.

As someone who learned to drive on a 49 Plymouth 2 door sedan, I am surprised it is similar in size to Toyota’s smallest SUV. I would have thought it was nearer to a Highlander in size.

Dan, the word “dimension” applies only to the length, width, height; things that can be measured with a measuring tape, as in the three dimensions, right? Weight is a specification, not a dimension.

And yes, please do look them up yourself. It takes mere seconds with a Google search.

Joe Latshaw

Posted December 11, 2017 at 4:16 PM

I’ve seen curb weights listed in both “dimensions” and “specifications” sections of brochures and magazine articles and the like.

That said, where you sometimes see differences between what we can all agree constitute “dimensions” between a standard and hybrid version of the same car would be interior dimensions. Depending on where they put the battery packs, you sometimes have things like a higher cargo floor in the rear.

You won’t even have to look them up, unless you want to. We recently replaced our 2009 Highlander with a 2017 RAV4 (non-hybrid/AWD), and on a recent shakedown cruise to St. Augustine, Florida and back we averaged 28-29 MPG on the highway. Around town the RAV4 returns 21-22 MPG in mostly stop and go traffic. For the record the Highlander (4 cyl/FWD) got around 16 MPG in town and 24 MPG on the highway. The RAV4 does have less room for cargo but we had no trouble finding room for everything we needed for a two week road trip.

From 1949-52, Plymouth built cars on two different bodies with two different wheelbases. The Suburban was available only in the short wheelbase series, which could almost be described as “compact”. If the sedan you drove was from the long wheelbase series, it may very well have been more comparable to a Highlander in size.

The RAV4 is vastly safer and cleaner and has all kinds of other advantages over the Plymouth, of course. But you can actually see out of the Plymouth, because the A- and D-pillars aren’t a foot thick; the windshield is upright and the dashboard isn’t three miles deep; and the side windows, quarter windows, and backglass aren’t scrunched-up gunslits deliberately designed to swaddle the occupants and give them the illusion of security.

And of course from today’s perspective the Plymouth has a hell of a lot more character and charm. “Wow, hey, look, it’s a ’17 RAV4!” said/says/will say nobody ever.

You bring up a very good point. The other day, I drove a present-day CR-V and a ’90s Volvo wagon back-to-back and it was shocking just how much better the visibility was in the Volvo, especially to the rear.

Granted, the Volvo is a vehicular brick, but still: I’m not one to malign modern safety features, but I really do think that rear-view cameras have become “necessary” only because it’s impossible to see out the back of anything anymore. In the Volvo, a rear-view camera would be frivolous, while in the CR-V it’s the only way to tell when you’re within five feet of anything to your rear.

A good chunk of that has to do with safety, I imagine: especially with the A-pillars at the front, but the blind spots to the rear seem to be a concession to…actually, I don’t really know what. Style, I guess? Illusion of security, as you say? It’s beyond me.

With that said, of course I’d rather drive around the RAV4 than the 68-year-old Plymouth, for more reasons than one, but I’ll be damned if I wouldn’t rather parallel park the Plymouth (except, now that I think about it, I’d rather not wrestle with the non-power steering. Maybe I’d just rather back it straight into a parking spot).

“A good chunk of that has to do with safety, I imagine: especially with the A-pillars at the front, but the blind spots to the rear seem to be a concession to…actually, I don’t really know what. Style, I guess? Illusion of security, as you say? It’s beyond me.”

Much more stringent roof crush standards that were implemented in the early 2000s. The way to meet them was with thick, shorter pillars. Of course, designers have been drawing gunslit windows for decades, so they were just fine with it.

I spend a goodly chunk of my time with my nose buried in traffic safety research, and I have a hard time getting onside with the rollover roof-crush standards that have given us these giant, thick A-pillars. Rollovers happen almost never; pedestrian hits happen almost always.

And yes, sad to say, the illusion-of-security thing pervades vehicle design. I’ve heard enough firsthand accounts of vehicle designs being guided by feelings articulated in focus groups—specifically, people think they feel safe in vehicles with small glass area and a high beltline, and think they feel unsafe (exposed) in vehicles with large glass area and a low beltline, so automakers give them what they think they want.

The same was being done with headlamps for quite awhile:
Our subjective impressions tend to be very far out of line with objective, real measurements of how well we can (or can’t) see. The primary factor that drives subjective ratings of headlamps (how well we think we feel like we can see) is foreground light, that is light on the road surface close to the vehicle, which is almost irrelevant; it barely makes it onto the list of factors that determine a headlamp’s actual safety performance. A moderate amount of foreground light is necessary so we can use our peripheral vision to keep track of the lane lines and keep our focus up the road where it should be, but too much foreground light works against us: it draws our gaze downward even if we consciously try to keep looking far ahead, and the bright pool of light causes our pupils to constrict, which destroys our distance vision. All of this while creating the feeling that we’ve got “good” lights. It’s not because we’re lying to ourselves or fooling ourselves or anything like that, it’s because our visual systems just don’t work the way it feels like they work. And so headlamps, especially on minivans and other vehicles where feelings of safety (no matter how spurious) guide purchase decisions, were made to produce a bunch of foreground light and not much up-the-road seeing light.

Now we’ve got IIHS and other outfits testing headlamp performance, or at least making a show of it, and so some properly rigourous attention to the matter is crowding out the feelings-based idiocy. Too bad no such improvement on sightlines out of the car; instead we’ve got the likes of Land Rover’s C-thru pillars which use cameras to capture what’s outside and project it on the interior surface of the pillar. Rube Goldberg is become real.

Don’t most modern cars have airbags in the A pillars? I assumed that’s what drove the growth of their girth.

Scoutdude

Posted December 11, 2017 at 6:39 PM

Curtain air bags are not the reason for the thick A pillar, all that is in there is a string. It is the C pillar where the charge and mechansim to pull that string is located. So that is part of the reason for the thick C pillar.

Plus the illusion that aftermarket headlight bulbs that emit light more in the blue spectrum are somehow better than regular, more yellowish, headlight bulbs. They just cost more and burn out much more quickly.

Not to mention the fact that, as our corneas mature and thicken, incoming blue light is scattered more efficiently than is yellow, so we curse at the guys in the blue light specials as they temporarily blind us.

For what it’s worth, our ’68 Country Squire rolled over with its trailer while on family vacation in rural Wisconsin; its roof front deformed only a little. Thankfully, we all walked away from it, as we hit nothing stationary. I still can’t figure out how it got into that oscillation.

One of the things I enjoy most avoid driving older cars is the view out. Hard tops and thin pillars aren’t as safe in a crash, but half my near accidents are due to a pillars so big they hide whole vehicles.

I have not found my A pillars to be all that thick on my 2013, 2014 or 2017 vehicles. But the C pillars (2013 & 2014) were wide but I don’t think that they obstructed vision too much. The 2017 crossover does have a small window behind the rear doors which does help with seeing out the right side from the drivers seat. I don’t find visibility that bad.

That Convair twin is still in use, though usually upgraded to turboprops.

Glad I’m not the only one to recognize it. I spent a lot of time riding in Convair 440s after North Central phased them in to replace their DC-3s. North Central’s planes were later retrofitted with Allison turboprops to bring them to 580 spec. Often wonder if I ever rode in the same airframe in both it’s 440 and 580 configurations.

Pondering the DC-3 in the Henry Ford Museum. While the plane is in Northwest livery, the placard says it later was operated by North Central, Again, I wonder if I ever rode in that one when North Central was still operating out of Willow Run.

United had many Convair 340’s for short haul back then. I rode them between LAX and SAC (now Sacramento Executive). Note how proud United was that the aircraft was radar equipped. While Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing built long-haul four engined planes, Convair and Martin built modern twins to replace DC-3’s.

As I read this, I started to ponder about my house, which is a product of the same era as the Plymouth. The house, built in 1955, with a whopping 1176 square feet, would have been a house for a family of four, with all of them sharing 2 small bedrooms and one small bath. That same square footage today would be a one or two bedroom condo, as I don’t think that builders would build a new house that small. So, while a small house and a new condo are similar in dimensions, their appointments are vastly different, as are the expectations on use. The Plymouth was made to haul kids and cargo, but to do so as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The RAV4 is designed to haul the driver around, and occasionally carry passengers OR cargo, but not both. It, like most new vehicles, gives the illusion of utility, when in fact it will predominantly be a single occupant vehicle with no cargo. I am not knocking Honda, nor am I bashing SUV drivers, but while we may be going back to the same sizes as the late 40s and early 50s, we live a completely different lifestyle, and just like the homes we live in, the cars are used in a very different manner than it was back then.

I too was going to mention houses; not just the living area, but the garage sizes. I’ve lived in a couple of different California “suburban” towns since growing up in a more established city in a 1920’s house. The garages of the two mid-1950’s ranch houses I owned were small! Definitely wouldn’t have fit any standard size 1955 to about 2000 Detroit sedan. So that era … really ’55 to about ’90 was more of an anomaly. The biggest sedans in my neighborhood are Audi A6 and BMW 5 series, not the American ones (Saturn, Focus, Escort, Bolt).

My 1956 Seatlle area home has a garage big enough that I could get my 1975 Buick limited in it and have a work bench in front of it. The problem was getting out of the driver’s side as the door opened into the chimney.

The 1977 home on the other hand is so short you can just fit a Panther in it with just enough room to shuffle sideways past it if you don’t center it, but it is super wide with an extra 6′ on one side and another 4′ on the other.

In the 70s I rented garage space at a home that was built no earlier than the 1950s. The garage was quite small, though my TR3 and my Audi Fox fit (alternately) with room to spare. I imagine the Pinto that replaced the Audi would have also fit, but been too wide to make getting in and out easy. The 77 Nova that replaced the Pinto would have just fit, but I doubt I could have opened any of the doors while it was in that garage.

Spot on! I grew up in a 1600-ish square foot house built in 1959. 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a separate family room and a 2 car garage, all in a nice, established neighborhood with K-12 schools in walking distance. When I was helping my mother sell it in the late 90s do you think a single family with children looked at it? Nope. By then it was suitable for nobody but those looking for a “starter house” or empty nesters looking to downsize.

Hmm, JFRank I don’t agree with your assessment of how CUVs in this class are used. Cars like the RAV4 and CR-V frequently make up the backbone of 1-2 children families, especially younger ones, who have no need/desire/money for anything larger. This is especially the case given the fact that 5-passenger mid-size SUVS (Edge, Murano, etc.) provide very little in the way of additional utility/space and most hatchbacks are low and sleek (limiting cargo space). The small CUV is well-separated from its similarly useful brethren. Your thoughts regarding single drivers is a broadly North American concept that applies to almost any vehicle class (seriously, look at how many large vehicles are also single-occupant on the roads) and I don’t think the modern small CUV is any different. In fact, the reason it is so popular is because it is the new go-to for couples and families. Tall, good storage space, AWD (climate-based), decent handling, decent ride quality, decent fuel economy. It is the middle-of-the-road car with the broadest appeal.

I’ve always felt that sniping at anyone for having a car with only one person in it, even if it is for the majority of that car’s time, is the epitome of nitpicking. No sh*t, there’s gonna be one person in it for a work commute. Forgive me for having anything with more interior space than a Smart, or for not working within 5 minutes of a significant other. Better to take a 5-passenger compact CUV that gets 20something in city driving than a 3-passenger full-size regular cab pickup that barely gets mid-teens.

Not sniping, just acknowledging a fact. No, I don’t think everyone should be forced into a teensy econobox, but I find it humorous that folks will convince themselves they need a 9 passenger seating three row when they have 2 kids and 2 cars in the family. I understand that a lot of folks want the biggest thing they can get, and more power to them, but some folks want a more simple life that is more in balance with their needs than with their ego. We had that ethic in the past, but not so much today.

“I find it humorous that folks will convince themselves they need a 9 passenger seating three row when they have 2 kids and 2 cars in the family”

The problem is that at certain stages of life those two kids have best friends, cousins, scout groups, carpools, sports teams, grandparents, and so on. And maybe a dog or two. Our family of 5 (with no dog) filled our 7 passenger Ford Club Wagon to capacity fairly often and more than once I wished we had seating for 8.

Drzhivago138

Posted December 12, 2017 at 9:20 AM

“but some folks want a more simple life that is more in balance with their needs than with their ego. We had that ethic in the past, but not so much today.”

Yes, because if there’s anything we can tell about someone with any certainty from a 5-second glance at what they’re driving, it’s that they must have ego issues, and not that they’ve got requirements some of the time that aren’t all the time. Why is it necessary to even bring up ego at all? Just live and let live. Be happy for others’ success.

The only 9-passenger vehicles currently on the market besides vans are base model Suburban/Tahoe/Yukons with the $250-credit bench seat. I’ve yet to see one of those in the wild.

Point taken, but compare a CUV with a similar 5 passenger sedan, or GASP, a station wagon, and really, it is all the same. A CUV is really nothing more than a tall wagon, but for some reason a station wagon became unfashionable and we stopped being offered the choice.Yep, the CUVs are popular, and they are good at what they do. And as to single occupancy, again, not picking on CUVs or anything in particular, just noting that most vehicles are never used as multiple occupant vehicles in most cases. More often than not, they are used by one person to get to and from where ever they are going, with no one else in the car or truck. Yes, a family needs to be able to convey the entire family at once, but not very often, and in most cases, the family has 2 cars, not one. In most cases, it is fashion over function.

I grew up with wagons. I don’t miss them. I’m not a CUV fan, but I’d much rather have one than a modern version of a Caprice or Century. Try getting 3 kids in and out of car seats in a Civic or Fusion, that is if you can even get the seats in there at all.

We convey our family in my crew cab pickup and my wife’s van almost every day. But you won’t see that as I pull into the office. Who the heck thinks people don’t need to convey the entire family all at once very often? A family of hermits perhaps. It’s easy to make up use cases and assumptions, but the fact remains that CUVs and vans and even pickups are very useful family vehicles so it’s ridiculous to berate people for buying them. Technically sure we could get by most of the time with a 5 passenger sedan. But it would be very cramped with 5 real people in it and make almost everything more difficult. I could also get by in a two bedroom apartment, but I don’t, and I’m not going to feel guilty about it.

I have had an affinity for these Plymouth wagons for a long long time.

Decades ago, I tagged along with my Grandfather when he visited a friend of his who owned a junkyard. Right next to the mobile home the guy and his wife lived in, was a Plymouth Suburban. Not much left of it, powertrain and suspension all gone, just the body laying on the ground, but I really really liked it.

Of course, my connection to 1950 Plymouths goes back a lot farther than that.

At a show at the Packard Proving Grounds last spring, I found a 1950 Plymouth, same color as my Aunt’s, and with the same style windshield visor, but a two door fastback, while her’s had been a four door sedan.

Hung around until the owner showed up. I told him my story, and asked if I could recreate that pic from the dawn of time. K. T. Keller may have had room to wear a hat in there, but he must have been a shrimp, as I was noticeably cramped.

The Plymouth is also 3″ wider than the Champion, which makes a difference when putting 3 people in one seat. I would suspect the Plymouth also did not exhibit the degree of chassis flex that Studebakers became known for. My dad had many colorful things to say about the lack of weight in the back of his 51 Champion and the resulting lack of traction in Michigan winters.

People love to deride the 5 mph bumpers but at least they provided protection to the corner, and other than a square hit. Of course bumpers are no longer about protecting the vehicle from expensive damage and all about occupant protection, at least in the US, or pedestrians for the EURO standards. Not that protecting the vehicle is more important than protecting humans, nor that it isn’t possible to protect the occupant and vehicle.

As someone who ran a fleet of cars with battleship bumpers, I completely concur. The front bumper of a GM B body could take one heck of a whack and show no damage at all. In the case of modern cars, if one breathes on the bumper, it is scratched or caved it.

We bought a ’17 Rav4 XLE. I regularly get 24 mpg in town and 29-30 in highway driving. Other than the vacation we took into the Colorado mountains where I got 25.5 highway driving it’s been pretty consistent. Great ride, and as long as you’ve got the blind spot monitors, the visibility is a non issue. Love the vehicle more every time I drive it.

And yes, it’s a wagon. And yes, we’re older and love the height and accessibility. I know people like to criticize these vehicles for handling, styling, blah, blah, blah. but they’re being built for a specific part of the population that could care less about how sporty they feel, how stylish the lines are.

Utility is the operative word. These things have it in Spades.

I suspect that’s what made people buy the Suburban and it’s ilk as well.

I’ve never really thought that modern CUVs really did that well in the utility department, except in comparison to other modern vehicles. When your other choices are sedans that generally don’t have good space utilization, or something gigantic such as the few remaining BOF SUVs, the current “mini” vans, or a full-size truck, I can see why people choose the CUV.

Some of the best vehicles for giving you a lot of space and utility in a smaller package that’s still easy to maneuver and drive are vehicles like the original Mopar minivans, and some of the contemporary competitors like the Stanza wagon. Of course, they were boxes on wheels, but great space utilization, no space-robbing center consoles, and excellent visibility. The only thing that’s really come close recently was the original xB pictured above.

The problem with a lot of modern sedans is that base of the C pillar goes almost to the rear of the car, so while the trunk can still hold a lot of cargo, the trunk openings keep getting smaller. So it’s not hard to see why people would pick the CUV, even if it just ends up giving them the same amount of utility as the sedan as they had previously.

I also agree the visibility is awful, but once again your typical modern sedan isn’t any better.

I did a similar comparison between a 1951 Hillman and Audi Q3 a little while back with similar results. The longer-lower-wider trend drove things for arguably too long IMO. There is a place for sports cars, but why do ordinary family cars need to be them?

The thing I find rather faddish about CUVs is early 50s people theoretically had legitimate practical reasons for utility – families were bigger, possessions were more cumbersome, and cars were still the way to go long distances before obtainable air travel. Almost none of that is the case today, you can get a 40″ TV hauled home in a MX5!! The underlying idea that society now has returned to a level of that so called sanity (at least as we percive from that period of the past, which has some rose tinting going on), with the popularity of this reimagined segment today, gives everyone a bit too much credit, and overlooks the still-impractical lifestyles so many people still seem to enjoy living, that the cars ultimately continue to enable, no less than the low slung PLCs of yesteryear.

From my vantage, what buyers today want is the image of being educated on their car choices, whether all that practicality offered will be utilized or not. Don’t get me wrong, there are undoubtedly people who do genuinely admire them for the same reasons as Paul does, but like those of us (now often denigrated) enthusiasts into 2 doors, styling, internal combustion only, manual transmissions and whatnot, the number of practical minded buyers vs. the masses who are actually buying the majority of them is just as low as when the Ponycar/PLC segments boomed. All of us who are into cars, regardless of our personal tastes for them are at the mercy of the zeitgeist that provides our selection.

The MPG of the Plymouth doesn’t actually seem bad at all, really,low 20s was about as decent as any minivan or non-hybrid CUV would get up until 10-15 years ago, my Mom’s Villager and Quest got about 19mpg mixed. Not to mention compared to what the averages were for American cars in the 60s-70s (my favorite era 🙂 ), that Plymouth was a downright econobox. In today’s hybridized world it’s not great of course, but I could see how at a time people would look back at them being efficient

Good points. A similar analogy would be watches. Do you wear a Timex or a Rolex? Back in the 50s, it was skewed to Timexes, while today skews to Rolexes (or similar). Why? They both keep accurate time. They both are similar sized. The difference is image. A 50s Timex wearing arm was looked at as stylish, practical, and well equipped, while a Rolex wearing arm was being gauche and flashy. However, the expensive Rolex is now in fashion, while the thrifty Timex is scorned as something one is forced to wear if poor. People will overextend themselves to buy a Rolex to be seen wearing one. It is their right to do so, and if it makes them happy, good on them. But, in the end, they are victims of marketization. More expensive and overloaded with rarely used features does not make something inherently better.

I don’t think anybody is overextending themselves to buy a Rav4. You both are ignoring the fact that a CUV does have real advantages to sedans, including cargo flexibility, AWD drivetrains, the ease of getting kids and older folks in and out, and in many cases towing. And if they simply like the way it looks better, well that’s OK too, this is a classic car forum after all.

Phil, I am NOT deriding CUVs at all, I never have said that. I simply am stating that many of the ones that I see in use are simply not being used as a family hauler, or toting cargo, or anything else than as commuters. I didn’t say they were overpriced, I just said that Rolexes are in fashion now, and mostly due to them being expensive. Geez, you guys interpolate a hell of a lot more into my statements than I thought into them myself. I would question the AWD aspect, but as I live in the south, not the snow belt, it has little need for where I live so I may be a bit more dismissive of it than others, but you can get AWD versions of sedans as well as CUVs, so the argument becomes moot.
My point was that fashion has changed, and thrift and restraint have become declasse, while in the 1950s it was praised. The article was referencing similarities between the Plymouth and the RAV4, and I was noting that while size remained similar, form, and features now dominate over simplicity and utility. And that is okay, if it is what you like. I fully believe that we like what we like more due to marketing than self-choice, but that is my opinion. I don’t begrudge anyone for owning what they want, using as they see fit. Drive what you like, and I will drive what I enjoy.

Phil L

Posted December 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM

I didn’t say you said they were overpriced. You were making an analogy between Timex and Rolex. That’s just not the case, CUVs/Vans/Trucks/etc have functional differences and I listed them. And sure you can buy some sedans with AWD, but those are few and far between and come with price premiums that put them in CUV territory while offering little if any advantage in economy or anything else. Again you are making assumptions about what you perceive people need rather than looking at the actual utility and handiness the vehicles provide.

Fashion has changed, yes. But excesses are not something purely restricted to a particular vehicle class. Today a Civic offers more luxury features than the Cadillacs and Lincolns of my youth, most of them standard.

My point is utility is not faddish as Matt claimed and which you agreed with. I agree with Matt on a lot of topics here, but he’s so far off in his assumptions about family life they have to be called out. It’s ridiculously expensive to fly a family, so most families do not travel by air, even fairly long distances. Most modern 5 passenger cars cannot really fit 5 people, in fact many do not even provision head restraints or real seating for 5. Back then they didn’t have child seats mandated by law. And people haul just as much stuff today as ever if not more. Only somebody who has never taken kids to grandmother’s house could think otherwise 😉 Larger more capable vehicles assist in allowing families to stay connected as the decline of rural America and job instability has driven them farther apart.

XR7Matt

Posted December 12, 2017 at 2:49 PM

Again you are making assumptions about what you perceive people need rather than looking at the actual utility and handiness the vehicles provide.

But you are too, in the inverse. I’ll never argue that the utility doesn’t serve large families and applicable lifestyles, they may very well be the best vehicles ever created for them, but the assumption that the CUV is strictly being bought by people with large families or families at all is not the case. There mathematically must be a fashion factor motivating the near 5 million that have sold in 2017, not every last one of those vehicles are put to the use you put yours to. A family of three doesn’t need half as much of the utility as these offer.

Perhaps faddish was too dismissive of a choice of word, but there is always a pressure to conform to the sensibilities of a given time, and those sensibilities are all over the place in humans. Nobody is practical cradle to grave, it’s just a matter of how people’s needs sync up with each other in their practicality arc, in a given moment, that determines what will be trendy. Mustang is the perfect anthisis example because being impractical compared to the Falcon made no difference to the million of people who bought them the first years, and they weren’t exclusively bought by people who expected any semblance of performance as that segment absolutely demands today.

I don’t entirely agree with the Rolex/timex analogy either though, because I don’t view CUVs as extravagant. I would say the more apt anology would be smartphones – most of us have them, but how many of us actually frequently use every last app we download? They give us the POTENTIAL to do a whole lot of stuff on it, whether or not most of those several dozen apps get any use after the initial excitement fades. With a CUV they carry the potential to grow a family, travel, or adopt cumbersome hobbies all with a single vehicle.

Phil, I’m actually not at all ignoring the fact that CUVs offer those advantages, the cornerstone of my post is based on that. What you’re ignoring is that the majority of buyers don’t in fact utilize those advantages to the degree that a totally different car segment absolutely wouldn’t work for their lifestyles. Those who NEED the ingress/egress advantages, cargo volume and towing capability are the same minority of people who bought sporty Mustangs in 1965 to participate in some form of motor sport.

Some absolutely do/did, of course, and they’re the people who influence the masses to follow their lead, but that’s exactly how fashion works.

Phil L

Posted December 12, 2017 at 11:43 AM

Technically I don’t NEED a car at all. I can get around on a bike and telecommute, even in a Minnesota winter. Some people willingly do so. But that’s not what I want, and not what I strive for.

There’s a world of difference between those old Mustang buyers and CUV buyers. Mustangs did not offer any practical advantages over the Falcon. CUVs give you a lot of practical advantages that I’d argue most people want whether they really need them or not.

MikePDX

Posted December 12, 2017 at 1:37 PM

Sometimes, maybe even usually, people will buy a car or truck based on what they might need only once or twice a year. Like the fellow who commutes in a big pickup truck so he can tow his boat twice a year. People frequently buy more than they really need.

My wife and I, being empty-nesters, prefer small cars. Only the Prius of our fleet of four (Mini, Fiat, Miata) has a proper adult-sized back seat. Even that wasn’t quite big enough for four of us to travel 1300 miles round trip for family Thanksgiving, with all our stuff for a long weekend, games, side dishes, etc. So we rented a compact AWD crossover Nissan Rogue, for about $220 plus gas (25-30 mpg) for almost a week. It was just right for the trip. Far cheaper and less hassle than flying. And better than owning and driving and parking and fueling a bigger car than we need day-to-day.

XR7Matt

Posted December 12, 2017 at 3:10 PM

CUVs give you a lot of practical advantages that I’d argue most people want whether they really need them or not.

Yes! See, that’s essentially the summary of the case I’m trying to make, we’re just bickering on the ramifications of it. My perspective is that if you don’t need the practical advantages, it’s no more practical of a choice as it is if it were the opposite.

The world of difference between the old Mustang buyers and CUV buyers are at the extreme ends of each, those who absolutely need the practicality at one end of the spectrum, and the other who absolutely needed the image at the other. Most buyers are/were in between, desiring the practicality and not really needing it, or desiring the image without needing it.

Exactly, a it is a compromise choice in wearing a Seiko or Apple watch. But nothing wrong with ANY choice. I must have hit several nerves, and unintentionally, so my apologies to any taking offense, but I was commenting more to say that fashion usually is favored over true function in car purchases by the masses. Yes, families need larger cars or SUVs, but a lot of them get purchased by singles and empty nesters, too, and those folks have no real need for such vehicles, but like the style. Same with watches. Same with just about anything, really. Do I need a convertible for any reason other than I like it? No, but I have one.
My other comments were based on historical views on what was more socially acceptable. Back in the early 50s, people tended to look down on flashy, choosing more plain or conservative things and less showy choices. Now, you don’t want to be seen in a basic anything, and if it is more obviously expensive, so much the better. These are the choices I was noting. Ones that had nothing to do with real utility and all with fashion. This is not how everyone makes their choices, but it certainly seems to be driven by marketing rather than utility.

Regarding the dimensions, the Plymouth figures are for a short-wheelbase P-17 sedan, which was sort of an odd Chrysler anomaly for the time, being about 5 inches shorter but more than an inch wider than the P-18 sedan. P-18 sedans were 191.5 inches long (4,864mm) long and 71.44 inches (1,815mm) wide on a 118.5-inch (3,010mm) wheelbase. The station wagon sort of split the difference, sharing the P-18 wheelbase and width, but stretching only 186 inches (4,725mm) overall.

The brochure I’m looking at doesn’t list weights, but it should be noted that catalogs of this vintage almost always list shipping weight without options, not curb weight, and so their curb weight would probably be at least 150 lb heavier.

I was surprised to find that my ’88 Civic wagon is very close in major dimensions, and engine displacement, to the second-generation (2009) Honda Fit. Wheelbase and overall length are virtually identical; track and height about two inches greater and width two inches less on the newer car.

The Fit is 300 lbs heavier than my car, has 25 more horsepower, and was estimated to achieve identical mileage (27/33). I was hoping to find figures for cargo capacity; the two bodies are very different in appearance and layout, with a narrower hatch and seemingly closer quarters behind the rear seat, and more (wasted) space ahead of the driver . . .

The second gen Fit is somewhere north of 80 cubic feet in space, as I recall. When we bought the 2010, the Civic was cross shopped. Without a hatchback version for the US market, the Civic seemed too small inside. Anyway, the Fit felt more like it had the soul of an older Civic, so we bought it.

Yes the second gen Fit got more cargo space then the last gen, but the Civic wagon from the ’90 got a very usuable rear opening , just remenber dropping in it an old steel 200 gallons home oil tank to the scrap yard . But the worst example of rear opening for the format is the Kia soul : relatively big trunk but narrow opening .